Sarcasm, Honesty, Objectivity

With recent news the proposed bill to bailout the major ailing firms is coming into full view. Democrats and Republicans are arguing into the night on what to do, and how to do it when it comes to fixing what could be the breaking point of the economy. I guess my opinion on this lays somewhere along the lines of agreeing with stipulations. The first thing is bailing out the companies. Now, I don’t like the idea of helping these companies for failing so miserably in running a business, but at the same time, I don’t want them to drag our economy through the dirt. I think my view on this bill has more to do with the fine print than the money given.

No other way to deal with the present problem has been presented that can potentially deal with the crisis that may be ahead. Ok, so assuming that this is the way to precede with fixing the current pit fall certain measures MUST be taken in order to make sure we don’t see this dilemma again. I think we need to make these companies work on there books more.

Make sure they have to report to someone outside of the company when they speculate the values of their holdings. I think they should also have more than just a quarterly report. We need to check up on the executives of the super-world spanning corporations because usually it’s their greed that drive us to these collisions. When a company reaches the point where they can single hand-idly drive a percentage of the economy down, there needs to be some way to hold them accountable.

One last point that needs to be made. The leaders of companies that need bailouts/financial aid from the government need to be held responsible. I don’t mean just a slap on the wrist… I will take my millions/billions and retire peacefully while the rest of my company crashes and burns.  We need these company leaders to feel that they are not high and mighty. They are running a business that is there to serve the people. Honestly… that’s why they exist. You wouldn’t need any of these entities if we didn’t need service or goods.

If they can’t run a business, knock them out and get someone who can. It’s the American way, survival of those who can. (Or so it should be).

This taken directly from newyorktimes.com

The proposal, not quite three pages long, was stunning for its stark simplicity. It would raise the national debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion. And it would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt.

…Democratic leaders have pledged to approve a bill but say it must also include tangible help for ordinary Americans in the form of an economic stimulus package.

…The ambitious effort to transfer the bad debts of Wall Street, at least temporarily, into the obligations of American taxpayers was first put forward by the administration late last week after a series of bold interventions on behalf of ailing private firms seemed unlikely to prevent a crash of world financial markets.”

(Thank you www.Newyorktimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin)

Is this just me, or is this a big slice of socialism for the US economic pie? Oh, and not only that, on top raising the national debt ceiling to 11.3 trillion dollars the Democratic leaders vow to pass this proposal if it also includes a stimulus package to aid those in need as well? Oh, and it gets even more grand… so not only has it been stated that these companies fail miserably at the business model but their short comings now have to fall on the people?

Not just those who have invested, but everyone?

This gives the power to the Treasury to attempt to alleviate this situation by giving them control of all the buying and selling of mortgage debt (The Secretary of the Treasury is, by the way appointed by president). Oh, and in light of this Obama and Mccain both have given great, BLAND, absolutely useless statements that reassure anyone with a brain of nothing because neither side say anything on how to fix this problem?

This also taken directly from newyorktimes.com

Mccain

“This financial crisis,” Mr. McCain said, “requires leadership and action in order to restore a sound foundation to financial markets, get our economy on its feet, and eliminate this burden on hardworking middle-class Americans.”

Obama

“We have to make sure that whatever plan our government comes up with works not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to make sure it helps folks cope with rising prices, and sparks job creation, and helps homeowners stay in their homes.”

Here is a great example of how our future president seems to pawn it off on “whatever” may fix it. I feel that this is a great place to state your position. At a time like this, stating what you might do in light of this situation may really make a difference if a presidential candidate actually give plans on what they could pass in order to rejuvenate our economy.

Another interesting pitfall of this proposal is that it only requires a minimal amount of reporting to the government. I mean, isn’t this how corporate America got here in the first place? We need more corporate responsibility. I don’t think bailing all these companies, putting the debt on the American people and wiping our hands clean of this will fix anything. The government is not there to bail companies out of their debts. However, this is a necessary evil because we have already fallen this far and without the government support nearly everything would crash… but honestly… we need to check up on these corporations that lie on paper but provide no real economic wealth. We need to look into real wealth, wealth that comes from re-investment in the company they are, not who they buy.

Honestly.

Real wealth.

Not Paper Wealth.

Over the last few days the obvious downfall of A.I.G. has be ominous to say the least. Today the news of the US government bailing out the isurance company rang through Wall Street.

“The Fed had decided it had no choice but to do the unthinkable: bail out A.I.G. with an $85 billion loan or risk a potential financial catastrophe of unknown proportions.”

(Thank you www.newyorktimes.com)

This previous statement probably being the best I could think to name this catastrophe. A.I.G.’s problems began 3 weeks ago when they faced a down rating if they couldn’t produce 30 billion dollars. When the bankers/secretaries started going over the books they realized the owed over 40 billion and later finding out that they had over 75 billion when it was reported that much of their assets were not liquidable.

As a citizen of the united states, I wonder how a company like this is allowed to suddenly REALIZE they owe billions of dollars. I mean, if a individual suddenly realized he owed a thousand dollars they are instantly notified and held accountable… but a company like A.I.G. can somehow get off on suddenly letting the world know they owe over 80 billion dollars. I realize that yes in the end they were caught but, seriously? Does it take that long? I would hope that in light of this occurrence that we could find someway to keep track of these big companies and their finances. It seems that we need more corporate responsibility and that they be held to the same standards we the people are.

“At a rally here, Mr. McCain vowed to take aim at what he called the “unbridled corruption and greed that caused the crisis on Wall Street.’’

(Thanks Newyorktimes)

I think Mr. McCain is dead on. There are lots of corrupt things in the market, probably more than I could ever actually talk about. However with the news of all our money becoming worth less and the rise in minimum wage. The most recent news is the bank failure of Merrill Lynch and the collapse of Insurance company A.I.G. Like many other people have said, the close to simultaneous. Many of the bank failures have come from the greed of the housing market and loaning industries. Back in early 2000’s banks allow new home owners to take out loans even with sub standard credit ratings. The economy took a turn and those who had all these loans weren’t able to pay. All of the small banks began to fail because they weren’t getting their money back.

In response to this many banks including but not limited to Merrill Lynch, Citi group and a bunch of others took on the smaller banks loans in order to help alleviate the smaller banks debt/loan to profit ratio. Now that things are still going south, the big banks are starting to falter.

Just to make things interesting the is Tulupman’s response to

“Tulupman said that customers with questions about certain AIG policies and products should call the following phone numbers:

Annuities: 800-448-2542

Mutual Funds with AIG Sun America: 800-858-8850

Auto Insurance: 800-241-1188

Insurance experts say that even if AIG fails, there is a state-organized system in place to protect consumers and ensure that most continue receiving the benefits guaranteed by their insurance policies.”

(Thank you ABC news)

Is it just me or is this rather wrong? The insurance company says, don’t worry… the government will take care of our mess up… which in turn will take care of you. I mean, i don’t know about you but that’s a pretty poor response when someone asks you (the company) what you are going to do if things go wrong. However, it is good to know if you are a consumer that at least someone has your back if A.I.G. fails. Perhaps we ought to have our government look into things like this instead of letting companies get away with pawning things off to the government. Right now I know that policy holders assets are being used as collateral and if I am not mistaken 20 billion dollars worth. Seems kind of odd that if one is protected that a company can just use your assets… what are you protected against?

Q.) Does McCain want to ban “all” abortions?

In an Obama radio ad it was stated McCain would favor a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. Would you clarify this?

A.) He has said he favors a Constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion. He would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.

And one more piece

Ban All Abortions

McCain’s support for banning “all” abortions seemed unequivocal when he stated it during a Jan. 30, 2000, appearance on “Meet the Press” with the late Tim Russert. The ad quotes only a few words. Here’s more of that exchange:
Russert (Jan. 30, 2000): A constitutional amendment to ban all abortions?
McCain: Yes, sir.
Russert: You’re for that?
McCain: Yes, sir.
Russert: If, in fact, all abortions were banned in America …
McCain: I understand.
Russert: …under President McCain …
McCain: Understand.
Russert: … let’s look at our country. What would happen to a woman who had an abortion?
McCain: Obviously, it would be illegal, but I would not prosecute a woman who did that. I would think that it would be such a terrible trauma that — but I would not make those abortions available or easy as they are today in America.

(Thank you http://www.factcheck.org for this data)

This is an interesting paradox that I had commented on before except to add incest. I mean once again, maybe its immoral/illegal to have incest but is it the child’s fault? I mean yes it stinks to be born into a world that both your parents are related/ or your mother was raped… but that’s not the point. We are talking about a human life regardless of the conditions it is being born into.

Next is the idea of what McCain said here in my second block quote about abortion being wrong and illegal but he would not prosecute her? Seems a bit odd. I think that its a very good way to ride the fence.

However, back to the issue. If one could enforce this law and state that women are not allowed to have an abortion unless they were raped… what kind of repercussions would that make?

In example: Let say that a woman who is in dire straights, wants to have an abortion and her boyfriend got her pregnant. The only way that she could have an abortion is if A. She is in danger. B. If they are related. C. If she claims she has been raped.

Now C. seems to be the fastest route. So the woman claims she was raped, now if anyone knows how the law works in most of these cases; the court sides with the woman. So, this may cause I giant out break in claims of rape. What would be the counter to that? A more strict court ruling in determination of real/pseudo rape cases?

I think if we are going to have a Pro-Life mind set, one should see about the reprocussions and the true reasoning behind our stipulations. I mean, what is the point in fighting for morality and justice if in the background you are just letting it go by the way side to clauses.

I have recently seen a Internet viewing of Mccain and Obama interviewing with a staunch Evangelical christian leader Rick Warren. First off I think its rather odd to mix religion and politics; interviewing with such a staunch religious figure at the church seems a bit off what American government wants to free itself from.

Obama said the he believes in the right of Choice and basically re affirmed that with Warren. Mccain plainly stated that a humans rights begin when the sperm meets egg. Now getting a bit away from the Obama/Mccain clash.

The law currently states that a Woman can have a abortion within the first trimester. There are many that wish to change this law saying that it is immoral and that it is destroying a human life. This is can understand but this view often comes with a clause.

Most of the time when i hear someone who is pro-life they say a woman should not be able to abort a baby unless they are raped or perhaps if it might injure the woman. Now if the reason that one should not have an abortion is because it is immoral, then why should one be allowed to kill a baby if they were raped. Sure rape is horrible but is it the child’s fault? Why should the mother suddenly be given a pro-choice reprieve because of that scenario. I mean, I believe rape is horrible, but its not the poor child to be’s fault.

I just thought I would point that out, because in the end. If morality is in question, it should apply to all things, not just some parts elsewise it doesn’t seem like a morality issue… more like control.

This is one of the key topics that seem to be effecting the controversy surrounding newly announced running mate. Palin ’s daughter is pregnant the details in my opinion are a mute point because what matters most is the fact she is pregnant and as some view it as a political firing ground.

From what I gather, Palin is a staunch abstinence believer. This could come as a bigger political issue in later events due to the obvious failure in that department in keeping her daughter’s virginity intact. However in light of this, I personally believe that all the spot light and ridicule being place on this girl is quite un-called for but it would be ignorant not to think that Mrs. Palin didn’t know what would come with accepting her position.

What makes Palin an even more interesting choice is her decision to keep her child with Down Syndrome. From a political standpoint this can be viewed as a positive thing in that she stands strong for her political views on anti-abortion as well as forcing her under age daughter to keep her child. This makes plenty of cannon fodder for those who want to counter point her acceptance of keeping a child and having a high profile job. I personally think that it is a rather weak argument because I would think that most Presidents much less any other high-profile time consuming job would have some sort of help especially at the white house. However, there in lies the middle of the road and trusting the person who may be elected along with Mccain in her knowing how to raise her child (Despite the most recent pregnancy).

The other point is her daughter is 17. At that age in Texas you are a adult and in court you will be tried as one. If she wanted to have sex she can go out and do it. Perhaps its acting out, I know most of College/Highschool age kids do and will continue so. I can see how one would be angry if her family (Mother) would allow her daughter to have an abortion because it would defile her political stance. However, what if her daughter was 18? The daughter then has the 100% choice whether to abort the to be child or not. Who would be at fault then? Would that destroy the image of a staunch Pro-Life leader? If this was the case it would be relative to the same counterpoint that i being brought up now. “Why didn’t her mother raise her better,” or “If her mother was at home maybe this wouldn’t have happened.”

What I am getting at is regardless of what happens their will be ridicule of the same argument whether the girl was just under age or barely of age. I think politics should focus more on the individuals choices and less on what the family does around them, due to the nature of which we all are… human.

We have a choice and our actions are not dictated solely on others.

Often I maybe referred to as Sylacus which is a name I often write under

More coming tomorrow.